|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 10, 2010 21:04:20 GMT -5
The Oscar race is heating up for us movie nerds and cineamphiles who lack respect for that ceremony of self-applauding nonsense, yet we can't help but get involved with the campaigns, betting, and of course arguing. Kinda like the BCS for everyone else.
So as a decade just ended, what movie is the most deserving Best Picture Oscar winner of 2000-2008? I don't mean said winner is the best movie of that particular year. I just mean which one hit the spot, or came closest for that year of the bunch?
For purposes, 2009 won't count since we find out in March, so this is purely a fun debate. Surely it'll be either Hurt Locker (which I hope wins), Avatar, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, etc. Later I guess next week, we'll do the reverse of this poll: Least Deserving.
That should be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkshi Tanahashi on Jan 10, 2010 21:06:05 GMT -5
I went with "No Country For Old Men."
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Jan 10, 2010 21:06:17 GMT -5
Gladiator and LOTR are the only ones people will still watch 20 years from now. Hell, most of those movies have been forgotten already.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jan 10, 2010 21:12:08 GMT -5
LOTR:ROTK
But that year was close for me - Lost in Translation - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - Mystic River - Seabiscuit
All great movies.
Least deserving I can tell you that now it's "Chicago", It beat
- Gangs of New York - The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - The Pianist
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 10, 2010 21:12:49 GMT -5
Gladiator and LOTR are the only ones people will still watch 20 years from now. Hell, most of those movies have been forgotten already. This. Those two movies are the only ones I'm still watching. Out of the two, I watch Gladiator the most, so I voted for Gladiator.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Jan 10, 2010 21:14:12 GMT -5
Gladiator (2000) A Beautiful Mind (2001) Chicago (2002) Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Million Dollar Baby (2004) Crash (2005) The Departed (2006) No Country For Old Men (2007) Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
Of this lot, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Million Dollar Baby & Slumdog Millionaire I haven't seen. (and don't really have any intention of watching.)
Lord of the Ring: Return isn't even the best of the LOTR, although I do like it.
No Country for Old Men despite being good has a poor ending.
The Departed is a remake, and in my opinion an inferior one. to Infernal Affairs.
Crash I just didn't like.
So Gladiator gets my vote, and it is damned good movie well worthy of an Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Jan 10, 2010 21:19:50 GMT -5
LOTR:ROTK But that year was close for me - Lost in Translation - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - Mystic River - Seabiscuit All great movies. I disagree on Mystic River, its bleak, depressing and just not entertaining. Plus it has Sean "I've fooled people into thinking I can act" Penn in it.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 10, 2010 21:21:36 GMT -5
Gladiator (2000) A Beautiful Mind (2001) Chicago (2002) Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Million Dollar Baby (2004) Crash (2005) The Departed (2006) No Country For Old Men (2007) Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Of this lot, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Million Dollar Baby & Slumdog Millionaire I haven't seen. (and don't really have any intention of watching.) Lord of the Ring: Return isn't even the best of the LOTR, although I do like it. No Country for Old Men despite being good has a poor ending. The Departed is a remake, and in my opinion an inferior one. to Infernal Affairs. Crash I just didn't like. So Gladiator gets my vote, and it is damned good movie well worthy of an Oscar. The saddest thing is No Country For Old Men is the prime example of sometimes it is NOT a good idea to 100% faithfully recreate the source material. Every event and every line of dialogue is directly from the book, which is a great thing, but....the book had a shitty ending too, thus meaning the movie's ending is equally shitty. And I got the point of the ending too, doesn't mean it didn't suck. Plus NCFOM, while a good film, isn't even the best Coen Bros. film, imo. Their top 3, for me, is O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Big Lebowski, and Burn After Reading. So while it is good, and certainly one of the best movies of that year(my personal fave was American Gangster for that year), it'll be a movie that'll somewhat fall to the wayside, and probably won't be brought up much in the pop culture of the future, meaning that the young ones will have to search it out on their own.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Jan 10, 2010 21:23:22 GMT -5
All great movies. Least deserving I can tell you that now it's "Chicago", It beat - Gangs of New York I thought Gangs of New York was better than The Departed. Still, even GONY would be seen as an obvious "Hey, sorry for missing out on Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/Last Temptation of Christ/Goodfellas" make-up Oscar for Scorcese.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jan 10, 2010 21:25:28 GMT -5
Return of the King was the greatest cinematic triumph of all the films listed. No Country is 2nd (because I thought There Will Be Blood should have won) and Gladiator is 3rd.
Most UNDESERVING is Chicago, followed by Slumdog Millionaire (which got a Best Picture WIN when Wrestler and Dark Knight weren't even nommed).
Chicago is proof that Rob Marshall can't even do a decent musical, which is what he was supposedly an expert in, because he does the high-concept thing of shooting all the dance sequences in quick cuts and staging the dance sequences as "fever dreams" disconnected from reality. Thankfully he won't get a chance to pull the con twice with Nine.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 10, 2010 21:26:37 GMT -5
No Country for Old Men despite being good has a poor ending. You mean poor as in it wasn't the conclusive, everything is settled ending you were expecting or hoping for? I mean if thats your opinion well ok, just curious. I disagree on Mystic River, its bleak, depressing and just not entertaining. Plus it has Sean "I've fooled people into thinking I can act" Penn in it. As much as Mystic River's dramatic clutch rubbed me the wrong way...I can't deny that it was well-shot, well-acted, all that. Still wouldn't recommend it, but I can't deny its accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 10, 2010 21:28:40 GMT -5
LOTR:ROTK But that year was close for me - Lost in Translation - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - Mystic River - Seabiscuit All great movies. I disagree on Mystic River, its bleak, depressing and just not entertaining. Plus it has Sean "I've fooled people into thinking I can act" Penn in it. I'm still pissed that they screwed Mickey Rourke over last year just for Sean Penn could be given a podium on national TV to make a political statement......now I wouldn't be pissed if Penn won several other awards that award season, but....he didn't. He only won two Best Actor awards last season. Mickey Rourke won 19 various Best Actor awards that year vs. Penn's 2. So there had to be more reason for that. But that's as far as I'll go with that.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 10, 2010 21:30:43 GMT -5
The saddest thing is No Country For Old Men is the prime example of sometimes it is NOT a good idea to 100% faithfully recreate the source material. Every event and every line of dialogue is directly from the book, which is a great thing, but....the book had a s***ty ending too, thus meaning the movie's ending is equally s***ty. And I got the point of the ending too, doesn't mean it didn't suck. Plus NCFOM, while a good film, isn't even the best Coen Bros. film, imo. Their top 3, for me, is O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Big Lebowski, and Burn After Reading. So while it is good, and certainly one of the best movies of that year(my personal fave was American Gangster for that year), it'll be a movie that'll somewhat fall to the wayside, and probably won't be brought up much in the pop culture of the future, meaning that the young ones will have to search it out on their own. I'm sorry to ask this, because I don't want to flame this thread in violation of what I had hoped for. But alas I must ask... What ending would you have prefered for NCFOM then?Its one thing to not like an ending, but what should the Coens have done instead? Again just curious. Anyway, I think NCFOM and There Will Be Blood (both great, and either would have deservingly won if they had) will be remembered for years to come. Mostly by film nerds and cinemaphiles, but they will be remembered. Most folks, i.e. the public, will mostly remember LOTR, The Departed, and obviously Gladiator. All are good. I'm still pissed that they screwed Mickey Rourke over last year just for Sean Penn could be given a podium on national TV to make a political statement You mean so he could make a political statement you disagree with? I mean I notice alot of folks who preach and beg for tolerance to their opinions, and yet then practice otherwise for opinions that isn't filtered for them. That said, Rourke was screwed. Rourke gave a genuinely awe-inspiring performance that thespian legends are made of. Its Raging Bull-esque in just that you can't believe that you just saw this in your lifetime. It'll inspire actors for years to come. Penn's performance was....well, more an industry apologizing for screwing over Brokeback Mountain and voting instead for a lousy after school special like Crash. Too little, too late, wrong time to return the favor. Also, Sean Penn is a prick from everything I've read about the guy. I mean what else explains someone who decides to marry Madonna? [/quote]
|
|
BK From WV
Hank Scorpio
Claims to have sense of humor, probably stole it
I'm Here
Posts: 5,611
|
Post by BK From WV on Jan 10, 2010 21:33:20 GMT -5
It will be an unpopular opinion I know but Crash is my favorite.
No Country would be a close second on my list. I agree it's not the Coen Brothers' best movie but I still liked it a lot.
I hated Gladiator and LOTR. LOTR may have been the most boring movie I've sit through and Gladiator wasn't much better in my opinion.
The Departed was just kind of meh to me. I didn't think it was by any means a bad movie but I didn't really find it that good either. I like Matt Damon normally but he just annoyed me in that one.
Only seen parts of A Beautiful Mind and Million Dollar Baby and liked what I saw but still need to see all of them before I make a decision. I haven't seen Chicago or Slumdog Millionaire.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 10, 2010 21:34:10 GMT -5
The saddest thing is No Country For Old Men is the prime example of sometimes it is NOT a good idea to 100% faithfully recreate the source material. Every event and every line of dialogue is directly from the book, which is a great thing, but....the book had a s***ty ending too, thus meaning the movie's ending is equally s***ty. And I got the point of the ending too, doesn't mean it didn't suck. Plus NCFOM, while a good film, isn't even the best Coen Bros. film, imo. Their top 3, for me, is O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Big Lebowski, and Burn After Reading. So while it is good, and certainly one of the best movies of that year(my personal fave was American Gangster for that year), it'll be a movie that'll somewhat fall to the wayside, and probably won't be brought up much in the pop culture of the future, meaning that the young ones will have to search it out on their own. I'm sorry to ask this, because I don't want to flame this thread in violation of what I had hoped for. But alas I must ask... What ending would you have prefered for NCFOM then?Its one thing to not like an ending, but what should the Coens have done instead? Again just curious. Anyway, I think NCFOM and There Will Be Blood (both great, and either would have deservingly won if they had) will be remembered for years to come. Mostly by film nerds and cinemaphiles, but they will be remembered. Most folks, i.e. the public, will mostly remember LOTR, The Departed, and obviously Gladiator. I didn't want a happy ending. I just didn't want that loooooooooooooooooong boring ass dialogue that I had a pain reading through in the book. They could've cut a large chunk out of it and still got the point across. Hell, the Coens are really great at symbolism, they could've got the point across without any words altogether! That monologue at the end just messes up the pacing a bit, in my mind. You have this thrilling tale going, and then once everything resolves, instead of easing into the end, the end is drawn out......
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Jan 10, 2010 21:34:37 GMT -5
No Country for Old Men despite being good has a poor ending. You mean poor as in it wasn't the conclusive, everything is settled ending you were expecting or hoping for? I mean if thats your opinion well ok, just curious. No I mean poor. Josh Brolin's character gets killed off screen. Why?? He's been the main character throughout and yet the last time we see him is talking to some lady at a pool. Some people I know missed that he even died in that motel. The rest of the ending is fine, but that off screen death was just plain daft.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 10, 2010 21:37:07 GMT -5
You mean poor as in it wasn't the conclusive, everything is settled ending you were expecting or hoping for? I mean if thats your opinion well ok, just curious. No I mean poor. Josh Brolin's character gets killed off screen. Why?? He's been the main character throughout and yet the last time we see him is talking to some lady at a pool. Some people I know missed that he even died in that motel. The rest of the ending is fine, but that off screen death was just plain daft. I don't remember the exact details of his death in the book, but I think his death happened in the book the same way.....
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jan 10, 2010 21:37:12 GMT -5
NCFOM should have had a showdown with Chigurh (Whatever his name is) & Moss because the movie was following their Cat & Mouse story primarily, And then follow with all that stuff afterwards.
It's like getting a really good Blow Job and then the chick decides to Stop dead before you get a chance to "release", And your just left thinking "WTF!!!!!".
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jan 10, 2010 21:39:09 GMT -5
I disagree on Mystic River, its bleak, depressing and just not entertaining. Plus it has Sean "I've fooled people into thinking I can act" Penn in it. I'm still pissed that they screwed Mickey Rourke over last year just for Sean Penn could be given a podium on national TV to make a political statement......now I wouldn't be pissed if Penn won several other awards that award season, but....he didn't. He only won two Best Actor awards last season. Mickey Rourke won 19 various Best Actor awards that year vs. Penn's 2. So there had to be more reason for that. But that's as far as I'll go with that. What don't you like about Sean Penn's performance in Milk? I'd say it was one of the best acting performances of this (or any other) decade.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 10, 2010 21:42:17 GMT -5
You mean so he could make a political statement you disagree with? I mean I notice alot of folks who preach and beg for tolerance to their opinions, and yet then practice otherwise for opinions that isn't filtered for them. That said, Rourke was screwed. Rourke gave a genuinely awe-inspiring performance that thespian legends are made of. Its Raging Bull-esque in just that you can't believe that you just saw this in your lifetime. It'll inspire actors for years to come. Penn's performance was....well, more an industry apologizing for screwing over Brokeback Mountain and voting instead for a lousy after school special like Crash. Too little, too late, wrong time to return the favor. Also, Sean Penn is a prick from everything I've read about the guy. I mean what else explains someone who decides to marry Madonna? [/quote] Actually, I agreed wholeheartedly with his opinion, it is just, I don't like screwing over the rightful winner, just so someone could make a politically charged speech. Regardless of what his speech was for. Award shows shouldn't be stages for political agendas no matter what. Mickey Rourke was the best actor that year cut and dry. Then again, that year was weird, both Mickey Rourke and Robert Downey Jr., Hollywood's arguably two biggest "fallen angels" of acting, got acting award noms and both lost out(though RDJ lost to a better actor, but still). Though just the fact that both of them got noms was good. Rourke still should'be won....
|
|